[MD] 1. Re: pure experience (DQ) (118)

[118]

Hi John,

Wise words indeed.  As I see it, there seems to be a sense of
ownership in terms of how best to describe Quality in metaphysical
terms.  All I provide are opinions.  If attacked, however, I can
strike back.  This is how philosophy works in its growth.

If I do use "personal confrontation", it is for rhetorical purposes.
I have never met the people that I discuss with, so "personal" is a
bit grand in terms of my intentions.  I never take any of the
criticisms seriously unless they indicate they are intended to remove
me from the discussion.  I try to focus on the presentation of ideas
rather than put down those of others for no good reason.  Constructive
criticism, I say.  There is plenty of room in Quality.

A reading of my posts will provide you with support of that intention
of mine.  Some, I have been told, are quite lengthy.  But this is easy
for me since I just write what I am thinking.  As I start a post, I
have no idea what I am going to write.

I know of what I write, and am not simply rephrasing the examples of
what somebody like Pirsig has written.  He could have said the same
thing in many different ways.  It is important to try to understand
Why he is saying it, and Why he uses the examples and words he does.
Looking at it this way, one can then create additional examples.  The
example of the levels is one.  Why did Pirsig see it necessary to
create levels?  Maybe one of the thesis so far have addressed this.
I, of course have my own opinions.

There is nothing literal about Quality, and any metaphysics of such is
a painting.  While there are some paintings which may be better than
others, none of them are Right.  They are all paintings of the same
thing.

Thank you for trying to control the conversation, but I can warn you
that it will not work.  Passion is not reason.

Cheers,
Mark

On 7/21/12, T-REXX Techs, Inc. <trexxtechs at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Mark, Anthony, and any others,
>
>            I come to this topic to intervene and reconcile.  It grieves me
> when what should be constructive dialogue among good people deteriorates
> into personal confrontation.  It doesn't need to happen that way, and I
> think I can help.
>
>            What I'm about to say will anticipate what you will read in my
> subsequent essays on "Quality and Inspirationality", but I don't think this
> can wait until then.  Inspirationality is a way of thinking with the
> expanded rationality Pirsig envisioned in ZMM.  I want to present to you
> one
> example.
>
>            Electronic communication can be a great vehicle, but because of
> its inherent terseness, it can also interfere with communication.  In
> Victorian terms, it tends to be "ungracious".  This makes it easy to form
> "filters" about the writer.  (Remember the "Cleveland Harbor syndrome"?)
> Once those filters are formed, they become highly resistant static patterns
> that are self-reinforcing.  They amplify instances that affirm them and
> filter out anything that contradicts them.  Electronic communication seems
> especially predisposed to the formation of these filters.  This is a prime
> example of a general principle:  Perception projects.
>
>            Our "rational" inclination is to suppose that perception is just
> passive collection of information about an "objective" reality out there.
> But consider what happens when you meet someone for the first time.
> There's
> so much a priori stuff kicking around in your mind.  There are also some
> preconceptions based on what you already know, or think you know, about the
> person.  If you know what his job is or what his role is, you will already
> have expectations based on that role.  We haven't even gotten to the
> person's appearance, the setting in which you meet, or any of the rest of a
> long list of cues that activate positive or negative associations and
> activate filters, almost like your biological immune system.  By the time
> you shake hands, you've got a complex and formidable static "straw man".
> You will begin relating to this "avatar" you've built, and it will be very
> difficult to develop any kind of relationship with the actual person.  But
> there is something you can do.
>
>            It doesn't feel good to be in an adversarial relationship with
> someone.  (Well, sometimes maybe it does.  But I hope that's not the usual
> case.  :-))  But given that the "person" you're relating to is really a
> highly artificial static pattern, you can fix that with a deliberate act of
> will:
>
>            Change your perception of a person, and the person's behavior
> will change.  This is an inspirational way of thinking.  It's not
> "rational", but it works.  This isn't speculative or conceptual; it's
> practical.  I have done it repeatedly, and it works every time.  I think
> the
> reason it works is because you have surrendered some of your static
> patterns
> and allowed Dynamic Quality to dissolve them and open a pathway for
> authentic relationship.  You can never get rid of all your static filters
> and perceptions.  But you can replace some of the negative ones with
> positive ones.  Then further relationship with the other person will build
> and strengthen positive filters.  The thing about this that doesn't make
> "rational" sense is that this works perfectly well even though the other
> person knows nothing about your decision to change your perception.
>
>            From reading what another person has written, you can't know
> what
> was going on in his life, what preconceptions and filters he had, what
> personal history had contributed to what he said and how he expressed it at
> that moment.  If you find yourself reacting negatively to what he has
> written, please try to take a step back, change your perception, and try to
> relate to the person behind the writing.  If you can do that, then you are
> engaged in a beneficial relationship, and you can both work to realize the
> value in it.
>
>            I'll give you a personal example, by way of confession.  When I
> first submitted my essay for posting on the robertpirsig.org site, I felt
> like a snot-nosed kid trying to insinuate my way into a game with the "big
> boys".  I "perceived" everyone in the Lila Squad as a professional scholar
> and philosopher, skilled at rhetoric, logical debate, intellectual
> discourse, and armed with an arsenal of "philosophology".  I felt
> intimidated and defensive.
>
>            Anthony shared my essay with Paul Tuner, and Paul generously
> reviewed it and critiqued it in terms of consistency with MOQ.  I genuinely
> appreciated Paul's help.  But because of my elaborate array of filters, I
> perceived "attack" where there was only genuine assistance.  I perceived an
> overpowering and disdainful professional philosopher where there was in
> reality just another IT tech like me.  (But he really is scary smart!!)  I
> now see what I was doing, and I have decided to change my perception of
> Paul
> Turner.  Paul, if you read this, please know that I value your kindness, I
> value your knowledge, and I value your honesty.  I want to relate to the
> real Paul Tuner and not my prefabricated ghost of Paul Turner.  I look
> forward to our further work and fellowship together.
>
> Kind regards to all,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John L. McConnell
>
> Office:  407-859-2637
>
> Cell:     321-438-6301
>
> Home:  407-857-2004
>
> Email:   <mailto:trexxtechs at bellsouth.net> trexxtechs at bellsouth.net
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>